Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K 12 Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland 1 presents middle-school assessment results; administrators say predictive tests underpredict proficiency
Summary
District staff told the school board that middle-school students met many growth goals on district formative tests but that predictive benchmarks (MVPAs/STAR) tend to underpredict actual SC Ready outcomes. Administrators flagged concerns about eighth-grade gaps and the new ELA standards and tests.
Dr. Hassinger, speaking for the Office of Teaching and Learning, told the Richland County School District One Board of School Commissioners on April 29 that district formative and predictive assessments show mixed results for middle-school students.
Dr. Hassinger highlighted three assessments the district uses to guide instruction: the STAR benchmark, I‑Ready diagnostic, and the district's MVPA predictive assessments. He said 58.7 percent of students in grades 6–8 met their reading growth goals on district measures; the MVPA prediction of SC Ready proficiency for the same group was 42.5 percent. For mathematics, 56.7 percent met district growth goals and the MVPA proficiency prediction was 29.3 percent.
The presentation emphasized that the district’s internal counts include every student regardless of state accountability exclusions, which can make district percentages differ slightly from state-published SC Ready reports. “Our goal is really to ensure that you all walk away with a sense of what our big 3 formative assessment items and predictive assessment items are at the middle school level and how we leverage that data,” Dr. Hassinger said.
Administrators also reviewed subgroup and special-education data. I‑Ready results for students with disabilities showed progress in both reading and math: a proportion of students met typical-growth goals and a smaller share met “stretch” goals (growth greater than one grade level). Dr. Hassinger noted that 36–37 percent of students in some math analyses had improved a grade-level placement since the middle-of-year measure.
Board members pressed for clarity about how the benchmark predictions align with final SC Ready outcomes. Dr. Hassinger and staff showed historical comparisons for 2023 and 2024 indicating that district predictive assessments have “slightly underpredicted” actual outcomes but have grown closer over time. The presenters warned that 2025 is the first year for revised ELA standards and a new test format for some assessments (including a new text-dependent writing format), which adds uncertainty to this year's predictions.
Superintendent Witherspoon and board members thanked staff for compiling detailed notebooks with subgroup breakdowns and asked that the district continue quarterly updates and provide principals and the board with responsive, disaggregated data to inform interventions.
Board members and staff discussed how assessment reports are used at the school and classroom level to target instruction, identify “bubble” students who could be moved to proficiency with small-group work, and guide IEP goal-setting. Dr. Hassinger and Ms. Sturtevant said I‑Ready, MVPA and STAR reports provide teacher- and student-level detail intended for teachers and principals to plan small-group instruction and targeted interventions.
The presentation did not include a board vote; it was given as information and followed by questions from commissioners.
